6 ms·
This sounds pretty petty to stop them being classed as astronauts because of demo'ing safety techniques or what not. It would be better if the qualification was
by sys_64738 5y ago
This sounds pretty petty to stop them being classed as astronauts because of demo'ing safety techniques or what not. It would be better if the qualification was to orbit the Earth (this planet) at least once.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoAlan Shepard's first flight wasn't orbital, yet everybody agrees it made him an astronaut.
- ls612 5y agoAlan Shepard also landed on the moon so he definitely qualifies
- MohammedAShahid 5y agoHe meant Alan Shepard pre moon landing.
- soheil 5y agoWhat's next, a passenger airline coincidentally cruising slightly above a certain altitude making everyone onboard astronauts?
- aquova 5y agoX-15 pilots who flew above 50 miles were awarded astronaut wings, by the military at the time and then to the civilian pilots by NASA more recently.
- austinheap 5y ago“Pilots” is the key word. There are not X-15 “passengers” so there’s not a comparison to be had imho.
- zamadatix 5y agoWhile a good point to base it on at first glance there is going to have to be a deep debate about at which point you really are/aren't a pilot and who gets to decide what that point is. Per BO this was the crew, though a lot don't want to see it that way. Rocket launches, planes, and boats all have automation driven piloting now - and increasingly so. If being named the crew isn't enough then exactly what is the cutoff for being a "true" crewman of a vessel? And if you apply that cutoff to any other modern automated rocket launch system is anyone ever going to be an astronaut again then?
- austinheap 5y agoThe X-15 only has one seat. No one is saying Southwest passengers are “pilots” because of auto-pilot, though.
- zamadatix 5y ago1 seat or not there is still criteria you're using to decide if the person in that seat is a pilot or not. I have a feeling you wouldn't call the rider of a fully automated single seater Southwest plane a pilot just based on it having 1 seat - it'd be more muddy than that as the true reasons you call the X-15 piloted are more than simple seat count. X-15 case is easier to quickly judge as the pilot still has a ton of flight control but understand there is still deeper criteria you're basing "pilot" or "passenger" on it's just more obvious. Now bringing this back around to the reason planes come up in the first place - who decides if the 3 listed as crew by BO are "crew enough" and would that criteria also block most we called "astronaut" prior to the BO flight. Rocket flights are extremely hands off and automated even compared to other heavily automated vessels these days yet that's not what has triggered the reaction that these folks aren't "true" crew.
- wang_li 5y agoHarrison Schmidt, notwithstanding his title being Lunar Module Pilot, never piloted anything. He was a passenger who read some gauges aloud and flipped some switches when instructed. We still call him an astronaut.
- jdavis703 5y agoThere are no commercial passenger airliners capable of flying above the Karman Line, let alone doing so on accident.
- soheil 5y agoBranson's flight was not above the Karman line. But I think you're missing the point, the point isn't to say who is an astronaut or who isn't, that's childish nit-picking and more about bragging rights. There, however, needs to remain a distinction between people who are intensively trained and are flown to space to do exploration or accomplish scientific missions and those who happen to be on a ride.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> There, however, needs to remain a distinction between people who are intensively trained and are flown to space to do exploration or accomplish scientific missions and those who happen to be on a ride. Definitions based on role get tricky. If someone outside NASA pilots a space shuttle up to the ISS and then takes it back down without personally doing science, are they not an astronaut? If they are, what about a copilot? Does it matter how many buttons the pilot/copilot presses?
- soheil 5y agoAbsolutism doesn't work. But we can still have a role based definition for an astronaut that is pretty well understood, riding a craft to space without any intensive training for a short period of time and coming back down isn't one.
- Dylan16807 5y agoI don't think the training matters. NASA could grab someone right now and send them to do science on the ISS for a few months without intensive training. Okay, they wouldn't be able to do space walks, whatever. They'd deserve the title astronaut. Duration of the trip works right now, but I don't know if that will continue to be a useful rule. And I would like to know your answer to my question. If we get a space shuttle out of storage, and someone pilots it but does nothing else, are they an astronaut? With said pilot being non-NASA to avoid the "everyone on a NASA mission is an astronaut" rule.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoYes, it would, just like the 10% or so of the world that are currently aeronauts. I could use aeronaut to describe myself but I don't because it's not an achievement. Yet I use the word to describe the Montgolfiers. It wouldn't diminish their achievement if I used the word to describe myself.
- dfadsadsf 5y agoIt was space race and US was not about to let USSR to be only the country that put human in space for 9 more month.
- pdpi 5y agoIt’s a perfectly sane definition — not everybody aboard a boat is a sailor, not everybody aboard a plane is a pilot. Their definition is “astronaut is a title reserved for the crew, not the passenger”
- zamadatix 5y agoThat may be part of your definition but it has nothing to do with the definition or reasoning from the FAA, as described by the parent comment.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rufus_foreman 5y agoThey had a definition. They changed it on the very day of the launch? I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. If you've got a definition of what exactly is a sailor and then you change it when I step in a boat, that's just ridiculous.
- neolog 5y agoThat's how good definitions are made. You refine them against examples.
- rufus_foreman 5y agoWhen the government is involved? Absolutely not. The government says, "Here is what is required for that classification", and then the very day you meet that classification the government says, "Psyche!", you're OK with that?
- neolog 5y agoI don't think NASA uses a different technique for developing definitions from other engineers or scientists.